Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively compare the image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and subjective image quality between CT images acquired with a dual-source, split-dose imaging protocol reconstructed at full and half doses with weighted filtered back projection (wFBP) and an improved sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm (SAFIRE*).

Methods

Fifty-three consecutive patients underwent contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen using a standardized dual-source, single energy CT protocol. Half-dose images were retrospectively generated using data from one detector only. Full-dose datasets were reconstructed with wFBP, while half-dose datasets were reconstructed with wFBP and SAFIRE* strengths 1–5. Region of interest analysis was performed to assess SNR and noise. Diagnostic acceptability, subjective noise, and spatial resolution were graded on a 10-point scale by two readers. Statistical analysis was carried out with repeated measures analysis of variance, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and Cohen’s κ test.

Results

With the increasing strengths of SAFIRE*, a progressive reduction in noise and increase in SNR (p < 0.01) was observed. There was a statistically significant decrease in objective noise and increase in SNR in half-dose SAFIRE* strength 4 and 5 reconstructions compared to full-dose reconstructions using wFBP (p < 0.01). Qualitative analysis revealed a progressive increase in diagnostic acceptability, decrease in subjective noise and increase in spatial resolution for half-dose images reconstructed with the increasing strengths of SAFIRE* (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Half-dose CT images reconstructed with SAFIRE* at strength 4 and 5 have superior image quality compared to full-dose images reconstructed with wFBP. SAFIRE* potentially allows dose reductions in the order of 50% over wFBP.

Keywords

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The University of British Columbia has a master research agreement with Siemens. Stephen Choy declares he has no conflict of interest. Dennis Parhar declares he has no conflict of interest. Kevin Lian declares he has no conflict of interest. Heiko Schmiedeskamp is an employee of Siemens Medical Solutions USA. Luck Louis declares he has no conflict of interest. Timothy O’Connell has received speaker fees from Siemens. Patrick McLaughlin declares he has no conflict of interest. Savvas Nicolaou declares he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Hospital institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. The need for informed consent was waived.